Pastor's Update
The Cultural Challenge for the Church
By Rev. Dallas Henry
Feb 29, 2008 - 4:39:48 AM

"Gay" street protest of a Love Won Out Conference

If you have ever watched the news reports of a Gay Pride march in downtown Portland, you can't help but notice the tone of some of the posters and banners they carry.  They will say things like "It's not about religion," and "Hate is not a family value," and others carry similar slogans.  The marchers say things like "All this hate is so un-Christian."
 
Did you ever wonder about the history of the Gay Pride marches?  The first Gay Pride march took place in 1970.  It was a two-pronged march held simultaneously; one in Los Angeles and one in New York.  Back then the tone was completely different.  The signs would say things like; "2-4-6-8, gay is just as good as straight"; or "Not all of us walk poodles"; still another would read, "Better blatant than latent."(1)
 
The thing that immediately catches one's attention is the sharp contrast in the language of the posters then and now.  The first march was aimed at the culture and used the language of legitimacy.  That first Gay Pride march followed  the Women's Lib and the Black Power movements earlier in the 60's, (2) being vocal and visible.  But after this 30-year time frame, the target has shifted from the culture to the church.

The goals of the movement are much different now.  The initial byword was "acceptance," an aim that has been achieved already in large degree in our culture.  The homosexual agenda finds a promotional voice in much of the media, and many companies now offer benefits to same-sex couples.  The goal now is for moral legitimization with a strong push in some states to legitimize same-sex "marriages," and even stronger pushes for ordination of homosexuals in several of the mainline denominations.  It is easy to see just how much the media provides a platform to support homosexuality by watching any of a number of afternoon talk shows.  On the Oprah Winfrey show a while back a panel of "experts" was introduced at the beginning of the show, all of whom were supportive of the gay agenda.  Oprah began the program by announcing that questions of morality would not be addressed, because "that's another whole show."  This, deftly sidestepped what is probably the most pertinent question on the issue.(3)
 
Now, 30 years down the road from the beginnings of the movement, we find the result of some very savvy leaders in the movement.  They knew from the outset the power of the media to sway public opinion and made the necessary political maneuvering from within the media to gain support.  With that kind of power and support, the only battle left to win is the battle for moral legitimacy as well.  Since the ultimate source of morality is God, the battleground has now shifted to the church.  The same tactics are being employed to win the battle there as were employed to win the media battle; conquer from within.  The controversies arise within most of the main-line denominations each time they meet in large sessions.  The reason they have controversy  goes right back to the acceptance and support already gained; if the power of the media is on your side and you make a lot of noise, you can be assured of maximum coverage (and maximum slant) on the evening news.

Homosexuals mock compassionate Christians

Another shift that has occurred involves the language used to describe homosexual behavior. The early expression was "sexual preference," a term that was used in that first Gay Pride march. Something about the term didn't quite seem to suit someone, though, and a gradual shift led to the later development of the term "alternate lifestyle."  That one was fated to change also, giving way to the current one "sexual orientation."  Now even that one may be on the way out, to be exchanged for "sexual identity."

The reason for the shift is quite obvious; a move had to be made to extract their own self-description from the language of choice.  "Sexual preference" was a definite description of personal choice, a term that was used at a time when homosexuality was widely viewed as a choice.  "Alternate lifestyle" was somewhat better, but it still left the idea of choice dangling in there. "Alternate" implies one of several options, and "lifestyle" implies something selected as well.  "Sexual orientation" probably was carefully selected, since "orientation" slides the meaning a bit more toward something innate and beyond choice. But "sexual identity" is the strongest term yet, and gaining acceptance.

The current use of the term "sexual orientation" has come about largely because of the genetic "research" done by one man, Dean Hamer.  Many people who have seen the results of this "evidence" plastered on the front pages of newspapers and television screens have simply bought into the idea that those involved in homosexual behavior "can’t help it."  How reliable was his work?  The basic finding upon which his conclusions were based was a study of 40 gay, non-twin brothers analyzing the X chromosomes.  Thirty-three of the pairs had five identical lengths of DNA on the tip of the strand.  Somewhere within the hundreds of genes contained in this small piece, says Hamer, we will find the "gay gene" responsible for homosexuality.(6)  In other words, the evidence is not totally conclusive, and the "gay gene" has not been located.  This research followed an earlier study suggesting that a small structure in the brain was smaller in gay men than in straight men.(7)
 
The strange tendency of such studies has been to overstate the results.  For instance, Science magazine in its report stated, "Scientists, educators, policy makers and the public should work together to ensure that such research is used to benefit all members of society."(8)  Ordinarily, yes, but when the media take studies with inconclusive evidence and portray them as solid scientific fact, forgive us the listening, reading, and viewing public if we smell a rat.  The solid fact is that "none of the studies on gay brains, gay genes, or transsexual brains has been replicated by other labs.  One of Hamer's ex-collaborators even accused him of selecting only data that support his hypothesis."(9)  These accusations caused Hamer to be put under investigation by the Office of Research Integrity.(10)  The question must arise also why Hamer was conducting this study in the first place, since he is not a geneticist, but a molecular biologist with the National Cancer Institute.  It has also been pointed out that "most if not  all homosexuality requires an environmental, as well as a biological, push.  The fact that half of all the identical-twin brothers of homosexuals are heterosexual renders it exceedingly unlikely that much homosexuality is caused by biology alone."(11)  Even Hamer himself admits, "We already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited.  Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors, not to negate the psychosocial factors."(12)  Other studies have suggested genetic links to violent behavior (13), and even to child molestation(14).  Certainly there is no great push to legitimize the behavior of those prone to violence or pedophilia, deciding that they "can’t help it."
 
 According to Time magazine in 1970, "Sociologists reckon that the nation's homosexual population, open and secret, is about 4,000,000,"(15) or about 2% of the total population.  By 1980, according to a Christianity Today article, the figure was estimated as between 10-15%. (16)  Looking at figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, from 1970 to 1980, it increased by 11.4%, from 203.3 million to 226.5 million.  That was down from a 13.4% increase for the previous ten-year period, and the increase from 1980 to 1990 was down even further to 9.8%.(17)  Going back to the estimates of the homosexual population, even if we take the more conservative figure of 10% offered in Christianity Today, 10% of 226.5 million is 22.65 million.  In other words, at a time when the general population increase has been on a steady decline, the homosexual population has increased exponentially, at a rate of over 400% between 1970 and 1980 alone!  That flies in the face of the suggestions of the role that the genetic link plays in homosexuality.  In fact that totally undermines any true scientific logic that relates to the field of genetics.  Scientists tell us that we are evolving, and that certain characteristics become more or less prominent through the process of "natural selection."  If this were true, the fact that far fewer homosexuals actually reproduce and pass on those genes—then how in the world could homosexuality be that much on the increase?  It is as it has always been from the beginning: a push for an unblameable and unchangeable basis of legitimization like race and gender.  This was the only comparable quality that was lacking between the early Gay Pride marches and the movements they were modeled after.
 
Everybody knows that the gay agenda is pushing  for legitimization from the church.  In 1972, The wording in the Book of Discipline in The United Methodist Church was voted in and accepted.  It said that "homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching."   In 1980 a measure was defeated which would have prohibited the ordination of "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals."   In 1984 the defeated measure came up again and passed.  In 1988 the language from the 1972 Discipline was brought up again for re-vote, and was upheld by an 80% to 20% margin.  A committee was appointed to study the issue and make recommendations to the 1992 conference.  In 1992 the committee gave its report and recommendations, but a vote rejected the 17-4 majority opinion to change the 1972 Discipline language by a margin of 61.5%.  When the floor vote came up, the 1972 language was upheld by 74%. In 1996, fifteen bishops broke protocol, and made a statement (bishops are not supposed to attempt to influence the legislative process) in support of several issues being brought up by the homosexual agenda.   A committee recommendation to change the 1972 Discipline language was defeated by 60.4%, a count which is accepted without a re-vote.  Other homosexual issues were also defeated by a 74% margin.
 
How is the church to respond faithfully and consistently in light of all the muddle?  There are four areas of responsibility we have as Christians:
 
(1) Prophetic responsibility -- We must uphold the truth of God’s Word and proclaim the reality of a REVEALED norm, not a norm that is culturally determined.

Truth, if it is indeed truth, will transcend culture and time and any other barriers we can put in its way.  We must uphold the consistent witness of the revelation of the Word if we are to overcome attempts to remove discussion of the homosexual issue from the realm of morality.
 
(2) Exegetical responsibility -- Clear, plain interpretation and exposition of the Word are essential to protect against false, manipulative, accommodative interpretations of Scripture. "Let God be true, and everyone else a liar."
 
(3) Social responsibility -- We are to be salt and light in our culture, bringing illumination to this and other social issues as a part of our witness before the world.  There are right ways and wrong ways to go about this.  In the film footage of the Greenville Gay Pride march, the camera dwelled for quite some time on a young man, a literal "Bible-thumper," carrying his Bible along the parade route, yelling at the participants, "HELL will be your home!"  That’s definitely NOT the route the church should go in its witness.  Perhaps a better social witness would be a silent witness like those who stood holding non-condemning poster messages along the route, without shouting or confronting the marchers.
 
(4) Pastoral responsibility -- Just as anyone else, homosexuals are in need of the grace of God. We are to minister to ALL those who are hurting, who are in error, who are in the bondage of sin. 
 
There are a lot of courageous organizations out there who are holding the line for a culturally unpopular theological stance. Among these are The Christian Civic League of Maine, Concerned Women for America, Exodus International (a ministry helping gays to exit the lifestyle), and the Christian Legal Society (a ministry helping with legal expenses necessary in this struggle).  Focus on the Family is another group which is taking on the battle on our school campuses, fighting against textbooks which normalize homosexual behavior.  They also have entered the public arena with a strong witness to the transforming power of Christ: the "Love Won Out" seminar, a group of several hundred ex-gays who have chosen to leave the gay lifestyle. They have traveled around the country to several cities carrying the message that change is possible.
 
This is an area where our social responsibility can be the toughest, because the ex-gay message is one that the homosexual lobby does not want to hear, and does not want anyone else to hear.  For all their preaching of the right-sounding and publicly popular message of "tolerance," they can be very intolerant.  One person tells of having had speeches interrupted by shouting and whistles, and even receiving threats from some gay groups.(21).  The Love Won Out seminar faced particularly strong opposition: "In Tampa, vandals spray-painted a local church that had no connection to the seminar with pink triangles and the words, 'Are You Tired of Being Baptist?'  The attack came in response to a Focus ad campaign asking, 'Are You Tired of Being Gay?'"(22). They also have crashed a press conference, launched phone campaigns against advertisers, and even intimidated churches.  In Southern California, for instance, several churches refused to host the seminar.  There is a strong reason for their resistance: "When ex-gays publicly choose heterosexuality, they threaten the gay lobby's core message—that homosexuality is not a choice."(23)  In Boston a few years ago, they demonstrated in front of Tremont Temple all day, engaging the help of anti-war demonstrators who paraded in front of the church by the thousands with loud speakers.  Armed Boston Police stood shoulder to shoulder in front of the church doors protecting attendees on inside.  Among the signs there were derogatory ones against Dr. Dobson.

The common argument they offer against the "choice" idea is, "Why would I choose to enter a lifestyle where I will be humiliated and/or persecuted this way?"  (To which might be countered that choice doesn't necessarily indicate deliberateness or intentionality.  For instance if I choose to break certain laws and wind up in jail, I might say in all honesty that I didn’t really want the consequences I received).
 
Another area where the battle will be tough is public perception.  Opposing homosexuality as a behavior is seen by many as preaching a message of hate.  "Homophobia" is the byword of the times, and it defies all definition.  Gary Bauer was a guest speaker at Harvard University (on a totally separate subject).  While participating in a question and answer session, a student asked a question which compared Bauer's position with Nazi Germany, where gays and lesbians were persecuted.  He countered with: "There is a difference between opposing the political agenda of the 'gay' rights movement and being an oppressor of gays.  The way that you choose to live your life or that others choose to live their lives is up to you.  [But] when you come into the public square and suggest that the rest of America needs to redefine marriage. . . and insist on the right in the public schools in America to teach my children that the way you have chosen is no morally different from the way I have chosen to live with my wife, you should in a rational, reasonable world expect opposition."(24).

The battle on this front has been hindered greatly by the "hate preachers" like Fred Phelps in Kansas, and many others.  By one estimate there are about 5,000 "hate sites" on the World Wide Web, and at least 250 of those preach their message using the Bible and the language of the church (25).  But occasionally there are surprising indications from unusual sources that at least somebody out there understands the difference: "Discrimination against homosexuals is not the same as personal distaste for homosexuality. . . identity and behavior are not synonymous" (26).
 
Can homosexual behavior be changed?  A 1979 study suggests it can.  A Pentecostal church worked with several gays in ministry with them helping them to exit the lifestyle.  Out of 11 in the study, 8 were "completely" cured; six got married out of a motivation of attraction to the opposite sex (27).  It is not impossible, but all indications are that a key component is the desire to change.  Only 1 in 10 ever seek help, but we must be there and ready when they do.  Here in Maine there is a ministry called "Free Indeed" based in Waterville with satellite ministries in Bangor and Portland.  The Education League financially supports this ministry.
 
In many denominations today, words like "inclusiveness," "reconciling," and "welcoming" are user-friendly terms that put a mask of legitimacy on the face of a theological lapse.  We need to learn to recognize the difference between ministry and theology.  Supporters of the gay agenda gain support by attacking theology in the context of ministry.  If we make the statement that we believe a biblical witness is against the practice of homosexuality, then we are somehow branded as not being inclusive, reconciling, or welcoming.  But our consistent theological mandate is to do both theology and ministry in dealing with this and every other issue.  Stating that the practice of homosexuality is "incompatible with Christian teaching" is a theological statement; stating that "Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth" is a pastoral statement.  There is no reason in the world to suspect that we cannot maintain both positions as equally important.  
 
We must be careful that the language we use does not paint an inaccurate picture of the homosexual lifestyle as simply a group of misunderstood individuals, a bunch of committed, monogamous couples much like the heterosexual couples we know.  The truth is that a 1978 study by A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg reported that 74% of male homosexuals had more than 100 sexual partners during their lifetime, and 28% of them had more than 1,000 partners.(29). 
 
The needs are pressing in how we approach what has become a sensitive and controversial issue.  In our dialogue, there needs to be a separation of areas of discussion and/or clarification of language.  Theology and ministry are separate arenas and must be treated as such; and yet theology necessarily informs the way we approach ministry.  When it ceases to do so, then "Just as I Am" becomes a concession rather than a confession.  The hard-line stance many conservatives take now is largely a response to the unbiblical stance taken by the homosexual agenda.

It is up to us to show everyone that the true stance of the church, even when it stands against the practice of homosexuality, is not one of hatred or judgment.  People are responsible for their actions.  We can judge those actions.  Only God can judge people.

REFERENCES:

(1) Time, "The Nation," Vol. 96, No. 2 (13 July 1970).
(2) Ibid.
(3) The Oprah Winfrey Show, WFBC-TV, Greenville, S.C., 5 May 1997.
(4) The Ananda Lewis Show, WCBD-TV, Charleston, S.C., 19 February 2002.
(5) Ibid.
(6) Sharon Begley, "Does DNA Make Some Men Gay?" Newsweek, Vol. 122, No. 4 (26 July 1993), p. 59.
(7) Sharon Begley, "Nature Plus Nurture," Newsweek, Vol. 126, No. 20 (13 November 1995), p. 72.
(8) William F. Allman, "The Biology-Behavior Conundrum," U.S. News & World Report, Vol. 115, No. 4 (26 July 1993), p. 6.
(9) Begley, "Nature Plus Nurture," p. 72.
(10) "Culture and Ideas," U.S. News & World Report, Vol. 119, No. 19 (13 November 1995).
(11) "Queer Notion," National Review, Vol. 45, No. 15 (9 August 1993), p. 16.
(12) Anastasia Toufexis, "New Evidence of a 'Gay Gene,'" Time, Vol. 146, No. 20 (13 November 1995).
(13) Allman, p. 7.
(14) "Queer Notion," p. 17.
(15) "The Nation."
(16) "Homosexuality: Biblical Guidance Through a Moral Morass," Christianity Today, Vo. 24, No. 8 (18 April 1980), p. 13.
(17) U.S. Census Bureau on-line, accessed 20 February 2002, available at http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/pop-hc.html; internet.
(18) "The Church Studies Homosexuality," Nashville: Cokesbury, 1994.
(19) Ibid., p. 35.
(20) Ibid., p. 52.
(21) "Religious Right Rallies for Gay-Rights Battles," Christianity Today, (22 July 1991).
(22) Candi Cushman, "Will Love Win Out?" World, (16 June 2000), p. 26)
(23) Ibid.
(24) Gary Bauer, "Questions and Answers on Homosexuality," Family Research Council, 8 May 1998.
(25) Jody Veenker, "Called to Hate?" Christianity Today (25 October 1999), p. 89.
(26) Jonathan Alter, "Degrees of Discomfort," Newsweek (12 March 1990), p. 27.
(27) Reformed Journal, March 1981, p. 10.
(28) Alan Kemp, "Sexuality Soundbites," Christianity Today (22 July 1991), p. 37.
(29) Randy Frame, "Seeking a Right to the Rite," Christianity Today, Vol. 40, No. 3 (4 March 1996), p. 64.
(30) William Dannemeyer, Shadow in the Land: Homosexuality in America, San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989, p. 96